Employee Engaged in Loading and Unloading Cargo At Fixed Platform in Coastal Waters Is Covered Under LHWCA
Wood Group Prod. Servs. v. Dir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21762, 2019 WL 3281417 (5th Cir., July 22, 2019).
Luigi Malta was an employee of Wood Group at its Black Bay Central Facility in the coastal waters of Louisiana. He worked primarily in the warehouse of the central facility, but he also assisted, when necessary, to load and unload cargo from vessels servicing the outlying platforms in the area. He testified that he spent 25% to 35% of his time loading and unloading cargo.[1] His injury occurred while unloading a cargo basket containing canisters of CO2.
An employee mustsatisfy both the “situs” and “status” test in order to qualify to receivebenefits under the Longshore Act.[2] Though thefacility did not meet the “navigable waters” requirement of the Act, the firstquestion was whether it was an “"other adjoining area customarily used byan employer in loading [and] unloading a vessel."[3] To qualify assuch, it must satisfy both the functional and geographic aspects of the situstest. As the facility was situated in Louisiana waters, it satisfied thegeographic nexus to navigable waters. The Fifth Circuit was not persuaded byWood Group’s argument that the facility must have a maritime purpose or thatthe purpose of the facility was determinative. [4]
Wood Group alsomaintained that the nature of the cargo was important to satisfy the situsrequirement as an “other adjoining area.” In other words, the cargo must be“maritime cargo.” Again, the Fifth Circuit panel disagreed stating that thenature of the cargo is immaterial and not dispositive of the situs requirement.[5]
Finally, Wood Groupchallenged the finding that the employee fulfilled the maritime status test.The employee may qualify either based on what the employee was doing at thetime of injury or on the nature of the work as a whole. The employee need onlyspend “some time” loading and unloading vessels; it does not have to be asubstantial amount of time.[6]It was undisputedthat Mr. Malta spent 25% to 30% while working at the facility loading andunloading cargo and was injured while unloading cargo from a vessel. Thissatisfies the status test on its face.[7] Wood Group’sPetition for Review was denied.
[1] The employee’s project manager testified that loading andunloading cargo was “’a big part of Malta’s job….’” (., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS21762 at *3)
[2] 33 U.S.C. §901 et seq.
[3] 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21762 at *8 quoting 33 U.S.C. §903(a)
[4] “We are not persuaded by Wood Group's argument that thepurpose of the structure where the injury occurred is the Alpha and Omega ofthe situs inquiry, regardless of whether the platform is customarily used forloading/unloading vessels.”Id at *14
[5] Id. at *21
[6] Id.at *22-23
[7] Id. at *23
